DEX-to-DEX arbitrage
A comparison of price levels across liquidity pools, assessing the market gaps and the potential result once the associated costs are taken in
P2P rates, funding rates and cross-exchange spreads — right in your chat, no sign-up.
Open the bot
Frequently asked questions
Why is the list often empty?
Because bots take the gap between pools within fractions of a second. What remains sits where liquidity is thin, and thin pools cannot be entered without slippage. We show the nearest misses with the full maths.
What does “token not checked” mean?
The token-safety service did not answer for that contract. We do not show such links at all: without the check there is no telling a real opportunity from a trap you can buy into but never sell out of.
Where do the pools come from?
From three sources at once: DexScreener, GeckoTerminal and Birdeye for Solana. Each has its blind spots; together they cover most of them.
Why is the trade size small?
It is fitted to the depth of the pool. A larger size moves the price faster than profit grows.
Is the bridge fee included?
Yes. For cross-chain links the bridge cost and gas on both chains are subtracted from the result. The transfer time is shown too.
How this differs from the DEX and centralised exchange analysis
The neighbouring section looks at price differences between decentralised protocols and centralised trading venues. This section analyses combinations between different liquidity pools.
That approach makes it possible to study price differences inside decentralised infrastructure, where execution is governed by pool parameters, the characteristics of the liquidity and the terms of the smart contracts.
Unlike traditional exchange mechanisms, the cost of a swap in a pool depends directly on the size of the operation and on the state of the liquidity. Assessing a potential opportunity therefore has to account for the effect the trade itself has on the final price.
How price differences are assessed
The effect of the swap parameters
The nominal difference between two pool quotes does not reflect how efficient the operation will be. In a swap, the actual cost of execution can differ from the initial price reference because of shifts in the liquidity balance, protocol fees and slippage.
A correct assessment has to take in the combined cost of both operations and the actual parameters of the swap route.
Assessing the potential result
A percentage difference does not always reflect the absolute financial potential of a combination. The final result depends on the depth of the liquidity, the size of the operation and how the quotes move as it is executed.
Directions are therefore compared on the calculated financial result, taking in the parameters of the liquidity available and the associated costs.
The “Depth to 1%” figure
This figure describes the swap volume available within a set price deviation from the starting quote.
The values are shown separately for each side of the operation and make it possible to judge how sensitive the pools are to a change in trade size.
When choosing a size, it is worth allowing for the limits of the less liquid side, since that is what can determine the final conditions of execution.
Criteria for the preliminary checks
Identifying the digital assets
Matching the contract parameters
Assets are matched on their identifying characteristics in the relevant networks. A matching ticker or name is not on its own sufficient grounds for confirming that two tokens are the same.
Checking the swap routes
When trading combinations are assessed, the assets involved and the parameters of the swap routes are checked for consistency. That reduces the chance of incorrect price comparisons entering the analysis.
Assessing token characteristics
Security parameters
The preliminary assessment takes in the available information on functional restrictions on the token, the particulars of contract execution, control mechanisms and possible limits on operations.
For some networks, specific parameters for asset control and transaction oversight are examined as well.
Reading the results of the checks
Whatever is found is classified by how far it could affect the ability to carry out an operation.
Critical restrictions that could prevent a swap or materially change its economics are taken into account when the final selection is formed. Further observations may be shown separately, for the reader to weigh.
Assets that could not be adequately verified are not included in the main results.
Assessing liquidity and trading infrastructure
The analysis takes in the characteristics of the liquidity pools, the state of the trading infrastructure and the availability of the relevant protocols.
Assessing venue parameters as well reduces the influence of underdeveloped or unrepresentative markets on the final figures.
Confirming the calculated conditions
The final assessment rests not only on nominal price values but on the parameters of the actual swap route.
The expected amount of the asset received, the return quote, the fees and other available execution parameters are all taken in. Combinations that do not meet the set criteria are excluded from the main analysis.
Cross-chain arbitrage directions
How moving assets between chains works
Differences in the price of one asset between blockchain networks can create additional market opportunities. Assessing them, however, requires accounting for the cross-chain infrastructure, the availability of routes and the associated costs.
The calculation covers the whole scenario: acquiring the asset, moving it between networks and swapping it afterwards. The final assessment takes in the available parameters of the cross-chain route, the network costs and how long the transfer takes.
Availability of cross-chain routes
Whether an asset can be moved depends on support for the networks involved and on the availability of compatible infrastructure.
The results therefore take account of whether a suitable route exists and whether it can be used for the direction in question.
Limits of this analytical tool
The results presented are intended for analysing potential market opportunities and do not imply that operations will be carried out automatically.
Actual swap conditions may differ from the calculated ones because of changes in liquidity, competition for transaction execution, network load and the movement of fees.
Some characteristics of tokens and contracts may call for further independent checks. Possible restrictions arising from the particulars of smart contracts and from asset transfer mechanisms should also be kept in mind.
The figures therefore make it possible to judge how efficient a direction may be, but they do not guarantee that it can be executed or that the financial result will be positive.
Methodology and principles of analytical processing
Forming and structuring the data
The analytical system brings disparate market information together into a single structure, accounting for the specifics of trading directions and the individual characteristics of each platform. That keeps the presentation consistent and the key parameters comparable.
Criteria for forming the results
Forming the analytical selection takes into account the completeness, availability and reliability of the source information. Parameters that meet the established processing and confirmation criteria are included in the calculations. Insufficiently substantiated values are not used in the final results.
Currency of the analytical information
The information presented is kept current through regular refreshing and reconciliation of the analytical parameters. How often that happens is determined by the nature of each category of data and the way it is processed.